Please note that the PhilPapers forums will be closed in March 2017 and replaced by a newer, more modern feature shortly thereafter. To minimize disruption, we have now disabled the creation of new threads. We encourage forum participants to wrap up discussions before March.

Philosophy of Law


 1 - 4 / 4 
2016-08-08
After the publication of this paper, I enjoyed personal communication with Aloysius Martinich and discovered that I misused if and only if in several places of this paper. The corrections are below:

The formula indicates the following:
1. A is relatively identical to the value, but A is not absolutely identical to the value.
2. B is relatively identical to the value, but B is not absolutely identical to the value.
3. The value of A is absolutely identical to the value of B.
4. A is not identical to B.
(page 135)

1. The expression 1 + 3 is relatively identical to the value 4, but 1 + 3 is not absolutely identical to 4.

2. The expression 2 + 2 is relatively identical to the value 4, but 2 + 2 is not absolutely identical to 4.
3. The value of 1 + 3 is absolutely identical to the value of 2 + 2.
4. The expression 1 + 3 is not identical to the expression 2 + 2.
(page 135)

1. The triumvir was relatively identical to Lepidus, but the triumvir was not absolutely identical to Lepidus.
2. The pontifex maximus ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/18954 Reply

2016-07-20
It seems to me that this work is very much unavailable to students and professionals. Have not found it online in any form, save for a few hardcover editions for more than $500. Crazy.
Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/18146 Reply

2013-01-11
For past some decades,  ’inquiries under rubric of informal justice’ have taken significant amount of space and time.  People have been talking much on it, and professors and professionals of law are engaged in discourse, planning activities and educating people. Many things have been told about it. There are enthusiasm and scepticism both looming large. Some people present it as an alternative to formal system and others as complimenting. However, the philosophical digging of the idea seems less and the ‘risk or danger of informal justice system’ being used not for sake of justice of needy but for subjective satisfaction of academics and vested interest of those seeing popularize themselves  is evident. Let us look it from the perspective of ‘anthropology of law’—a system of justice is a means of satisfying ‘psychological satisfaction’ of individual. According to this theory, the tendency of using ‘right’  as claim in absolute term would be soften by ‘having no cha ... (read more)

 1 - 4 / 4